photo of the day

Maybe it has been posted before, but I would like to know with what camera/objective the "photo of the day" pictures were taken. It would also be informative if focus-stacking was used. The pictures are always quite good and one can learn from that. Regards Rolf

I have recenty invested some time and investigated and compared aperture closure against stacking at maximumn resolution of the lens. The result is quite clear: Below the 10 cm field of view range in digital photography stacking outperforms always single shot with smaller aperture. And as it can be automated I now do it regulary. So my phototype is now often full view with layer composition. My only used f-stop is 8. This gives (typical) the best resolution. The camera is not important as long it has the right firmware and software to communicate with software tools, it´s the lens, the light and the eye of a photographer patient enough to train for skills. To turn photography in good photography is not one big multiplier, many small increments make sucess.

its important yes, take a crop on a photo take with a canon 1000D and a 5D mark II and look the difference, lens its the first on the importance, but if a good lens work on a not good camera, even useless take photos.

In fact, for me camera is not very important. Most of camera are enough to take good photo with my technic. I use a bridge and it's enough for me. In france, standard is reflex with luminar.... It's not the only possibility.... I try all kind of lens and in fact, expensive lens are not usefull...

Bridge or compact, close-up and microscopic objective are able to done the same result and maybe better when technic is good. Look my photo and others with reflex.... Do you see a difference ?

With 1000 euros you have all for take all photo... until 0.6 mm of FOV....

And POTD dont' mean quality.... Sorry but a lot of are not the best....

The difference I seen, I am professionist photographer and its years I work on photography. 1000 euro only? for all my set, lenses, camera etc.. I have pay over 15.000,00 euro. And difference its well visible from a normaly bridge to a full frame camera.

i have offer a thing : Exchange some microminerals to take same photo of these. All reflex have refused this proposal....Afraid ?

The reason is simple, reflex is not important pour micromineral photo. The difference come with the quality of lenses....

If you want i can make photo of all specimen than you want to compare my system at 1000 euros (with camera) and your system. For this time money don't give avantage. Quality is done by photograph, eyes and intelligence....

Also, same methods give same results. Often, photo are too dark in mindat... Dark cover defaults but don't give good photo. For me minerals are living not dead. Colour, light is important. So Matteo for that you are in the best without problem for others we are not on the same wave lenght.

And today the POTD have been selected by friends for friends. Yes it's a good photo (for this time) but on an other forum, this photo has already been selected haha ! I can said when french photo is selected or not.... Do you want a list ?

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Matteo,> > i have offer a thing : Exchange some microminerals> to take same photo of these. All reflex have> refused this proposal....Afraid ?

I not have problems, I have photographed minerals photographed from other photographers and you can see the difference. And just for say some of your photos are many out of focus or without contrast, others is ok, this is strange why or all photos come out of focus or all photos are right. I understand the out of focus on a crystal of under 1 mm, but not on area of 3-4 mm

> > The reason is simple, reflex is not important pour> micromineral photo. The difference come with the> quality of lenses....>

well, my all lenses its zeiss luminar, nikkor, photar-leitz the best in the market

> If you want i can make photo of all specimen than> you want to compare my system at 1000 euros (with> camera) and your system. For this time money don't> give avantage. Quality is done by photograph, eyes> and intelligence....

yes, otherwise I would not work for 5 magazines of mineralogy

> > Also, same methods give same results. Often,> photo are too dark in mindat... Dark cover> defaults but don't give good photo. For me> minerals are living not dead. Colour, light is> important. So Matteo for that you are in the best> without problem for others we are not on the same> wave lenght.> > And today the POTD have been selected by friends> for friends. Yes it's a good photo (for this time)> but on an other forum, this photo has already been> selected haha ! I can said when french photo is> selected or not.... Do you want a list ?

yes is nice, but not many cured, its well visible have used a multifocus system

i don't work for magazine... They don't paid in France.... I prefer work for others people who want photo for book etc. And magazine are not quality enough for than i paid for that.

Sometimes i work fastly and it's not important to make the best photo.... An other problem on mindat is the resize. I work with a native size of 1150 pixel (for photo) and the compression give low result.... But i can increase the level sometimes too ! I don't optimise for mindat.

For seen the real photo it's possible to click on but not all times.

Ok matteo, for me magazine (i don't buy magazine....) are not important. If you want compare it's possible. You can send what you want just for seen the difference between a professionnal like you and an amator like me. I promise to do the best with than i can.

But when i see your photo on mindat, i can make photo at the same level (or better ? haha). I know that. But perhaps it's false, give me a lesson :). But friendly...

In fact this small world is full of sharks.... But for me don't recognise my work is a problem. In these case, i can increase quality... It's just for pleasure to compare with reflex. Because reflex are for professionnal (no ?) and others can't done so well. Matteo you speak like a professor and i 'm not a student. Just make photo with my small material (yes for 1000 euro you can take like me). Sometimes you said very interessant thing but please try to be friendly. We are not in the world of lux.

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> hi Matteo,> > > Sometimes i work fastly and it's not important to> make the best photo.... An other problem on mindat> is the resize. I work with a native size of 1150> pixel (for photo) and the compression give low> result.... But i can increase the level sometimes> too ! I don't optimise for mindat.

calculate my photos on mindat its many resized, normaly on mindat I put photos 800x534 but now I have start to put photos of 1000x667 but normaly the photos for magazine, books etc.. go for 3543x2362 but I not put on mindat for copyright questions, but they not lost quality, is this the nice of the full frame, you cut but no lost, start to cut with a normaly reflex or crop, and you seen how many nice pixel squares you seen, for not speack of the grain in the photo. And I work with JPG, not RAW.

> > For seen the real photo it's possible to click on> but not all times.> > Ok matteo, for me magazine (i don't buy> magazine....) are not important. If you want> compare it's possible. You can send what you want> just for seen the difference between a> professionnal like you and an amator like me. I> promise to do the best with than i can.> > But when i see your photo on mindat, i can make> photo at the same level (or better ? haha). I know> that. But perhpas it's false, give me a lesson :).

depend from how much you take photos, me its 20 years, and only from 4 years I take photo of minerals. I did a lot of bets on photo theme, with others who think that a simple compact work as a full frame, but they have always lost the bet.

Okay matteo no crop just resize and full size for seen. My photo on mindat have no crop. The size is 4000x3000 pixel. When i sell for A4 page (300 DPI, in tiff) , it's necessary. You can choose what you want with the size too. I can make between infini and 0.6 mm.

I wan't lose the bet against you, but for the moment.... I don't know.

I have not à lot of specimen exept anatase. But you are more rich than me.

Now now, children; let's not get a case of photograpic envy here, but rather stick to the original question of how some of these wonderful POTD are taken and what settings/techniques are being used....

Guys, this discussion is pointless. These are just opinions and it reminds me of the brand wars in the various photo forums.

As we can see from the many excellent photographs here, the camera (as long as it meets the minimum technical requirements) really is secondary. The pixel level quality only comes into account when you want to print very large or crop excessively. However, there is one thing where I would always prefer a good DSLR (full frame) to an APSC sensor or even smaller (e.g. m4/3) and that is dynamic range. I can retrieve so much highlight detail from my D3 files, something that was not possible when I still had my D200 - and with smaller sensors it is even worse.

One thing I wonder, though, is that nobody mentioned the importance of good lighting. The best camera is uncapable of producing a decent photo if the subject is badly lit. IMHO, the lighting and the optics, and a stable setup are way more important than the camera. And, of course, to know your equipment.

Matteo Chinellato Wrote:

> well, my all lenses its zeiss luminar, nikkor,> photar-leitz the best in the market

Sorry, if I disagree here. Luminars and Photars are 30 year old technology. I have been working with both brands myself for more than 20 years. I mean, they are still outstanding optics but modern microscope objectives (e.g. Mitutoyo or Nikon, also other lesser known brands) beat them by a fair margin as far as detail rendition is concerned.

Some posters already mention the equipment used in the descriptions of the images. The question is how detailed should this information be?

Is camera and lens/microscope sufficient? Or should it also describe the lighting method, the stacking software, incl. algorithm used, the stack size? An exaggerated version would even mention the camera settings in detail or point out the applied postprocessing techniques and the software used.

I am not sure if I would take the time to list all this.

@Jolyon: Is it possible to add a feature to the galleries to enable a user to read out the exif data?

Harald Schillhammer Wrote:------------------------------------------------------->> > Sorry, if I disagree here. Luminars and Photars> are 30 year old technology. I have been working> with both brands myself for more than 20 years. I> mean, they are still outstanding optics but modern> microscope objectives (e.g. Mitutoyo or Nikon,> also other lesser known brands) beat them by a> fair margin as far as detail rendition is> concerned.

30 years good technology, not for nothing many photographers use old lens on digital cameras seen their high quality. For me the many good lens its the Olympus Zuiko.

Matteo Chinellato Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> @Jolyon: Is it possible to add a feature to the> galleries to enable a user to read out the exif> data?> > exif data not appear if the lens its not directly> connected to the camera, or appear incorrect

I stand corrected. In case of the images presented here it would not make much sense.

Harald Schillhammer Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Back to topic:> > Some posters already mention the equipment used in> the descriptions of the images. The question is> how detailed should this information be?> > Is camera and lens/microscope sufficient? Or> should it also describe the lighting method, the> stacking software, incl. algorithm used, the stack> size? An exaggerated version would even mention> the camera settings in detail or point out the> applied postprocessing techniques and the software> used.> > I am not sure if I would take the time to list all> this.>

I certainly wouldn't take the time to list all that in the photo caption either. To me, it would just detract from the beauty of the photo which I'm sure nobody wants. Rather, I would suggest that if folks want more technical details about the photo and how it was taken, just PM or email the poster.

Hi everybody,Quite a discussion. In general the presented photo's are of a very good quality.I am just an amateur and a lot of you are profs. That is ok with me.I was just interested to know whether a pic was stacked, to compare themwith an unstacked picture.Keep the good work up.Regards Rolf

It's not the reality... But it's not important... Things are clear for me. It's easy to compare photo choosen and others.... In fact POTD don't mean the best just a selection of photo and sometimes photos of friends.... The resut is a selection of lower quality sometimes.

Uwe it's your case but all the case....

On 100 % of POTD :

- 50% are bad : dark, vague, bad light, no field of view, pixellisation..... - 25 % are good but better exist- 25 % are very good but choice are the same photographers, often.

For resolve the problem, make a votation system but limited. When a personn see a photo she can vote one time.

I think there is some misunderstanding of what the POTD represents, I do not ever remember where the POTD was the best photo of any mineral. POTD is simply what one of the MINDAT managers thinks should be highlighted for that day. I have no idea why someone has picked any of my photos, I actually think some others are much better - however whoever picked them must have liked them - why....not my problem.

I agree that some of the photography provided by a small few is of the highest standard but please tell me why POTD should be limited to only those who can produce this level of photograph. This is just another case of elitism - something that most of us think is distasteful.

I am just as happy to see a photo provided by someone who has a camera that likely cost little more than the camera strap used by a few of the most elite contributors; by doing this we encourage people to keep improving their interest in mineral photography.

Frédéric - I think you see a problem when none exists, I certainly have no issues if 50% are too dark, (most of mine suffer from this) and 25% are not as good as others on the list.

So lets just leave things as they are, this way we will always have little surprises..

what you think is exactly what i think.... There is no problem. Just things must be clear. POTD are not the best of photo just a selection of photo to show a kind of diversity. And same the word diversity is not exact. It's just a selection of managers....

POTD is not a representation of the best photo, just a representation of selection what managers think.

The discussion was about the POTD and materials. Problem is than POTD isn't a standard of quality....

Problem is than some use POTD like an award and it's a chocolate award....

Dominik Schläfli Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Matteo,> Between which points do you measure the 0.26 mm ?> Is it the largest distance across the group, or> the length of the edge of one of the crystals ?> FOV is less ambiguous. > best regards,> Dominik

normaly I use electronic caliper with lens, for others I use the ocular micrometer of the microscope. I take the measure from a corner to corner for the group, type here, or of the single crystal when possible

another question on different cameras, here a wulfenite of Rowley Mine of 7.14 mm. The first is take in the 12/12/2008 with Canon 40D the second take today 18/12/2011 with Canon 5D mark II, same file size worked the definition its many different

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Yes exactly 1.4 mm for Matteo and my photo is very> far of this size i can made photo for compare but> for the moment i study for 0.35 mm of FOV.

ok, but it will be unusable for publications, in my case for similar measure the reviews use SEM photos

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Matteo i prepare this photo and she is not> horrible.... If you can't, i understand. The> Beraunite is not horrible, she is limited by> diffraction and in fact she is very good for the> size...

Fred, I think diffraction is the minor problem in this photo. I can see focus banding, i.e., the stepping increments are too large - not enough overlap. What is the numerical aperture of your 20X objective? Usually, 20X objectives have a DOF of a little more than 2 microns, that means you would need stepping increments of less than 2 microns. Also, the quality of that lens looks a bit soft to me.Cheers

Matteo, these photos clearly show the limitations of Luminars and Photars. For this subject size, you would probably take a 12.5 Photar at full bellows extension. Even when used with completely open aperture, the effective aperture is way beyond the diffraction limit. In addition, the working distance is so small that lighting becomes a problem. For this subject size I would choose a 40X objective and if you take a ELWD version you still have substantially more working distance than with a Photar. However, at this magnification one has to be extremely careful to avoid even the slightest vibration. As a Canon user, you have at least the advantage of the silent mode which mitigates the problems caused by mirror slap and shutter curtain. But even a car passing outside the house might have negative influence on the quality :). I think with microscope objectives you may achieve acceptable print quality down to a FOV of about 0.1 mm, given you have an absolutely vibration-free set-up. Anything smaller than that I guess SEM is the only serious option.Cheers

Harald Schillhammer Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Matteo Chinellato Wrote:> --------------------------------------------------> -----> > well here the group of yellow pyroclore of 0.26> mm> > into a cavity, files are not worked, in the> first> > is normaly format, in the second its a cut and> a> > crop of the group, not worked the same> > > >> http://s02.imageupper.com/1_t/4/W13242405101346622> > > _2.jpg> > > >> http://s02.imageupper.com/1_t/4/W13242405101346622> > > _1.jpg> > > > the end work is here> > http://www.mindat.org/photo-342329.html> > > Matteo, these photos clearly show the limitations> of Luminars and Photars. For this subject size,> you would probably take a 12.5 Photar at full> bellows extension. Even when used with completely> open aperture, the effective aperture is way> beyond the diffraction limit. In addition, the> working distance is so small that lighting becomes> a problem. For this subject size I would choose a> 40X objective and if you take a ELWD version you> still have substantially more working distance> than with a Photar. However, at this magnification> one has to be extremely careful to avoid even the> slightest vibration. As a Canon user, you have at> least the advantage of the silent mode which> mitigates the problems caused by mirror slap and> shutter curtain. But even a car passing outside> the house might have negative influence on the> quality :). I think with microscope objectives you> may achieve acceptable print quality down to a FOV> of about 0.1 mm, given you have an absolutely> vibration-free set-up. Anything smaller than that> I guess SEM is the only serious option.> Cheers

I use everytime the live view of the camera, the problem is moving the bellow with hands, when I have extra money I buy the computed micrometer slide just for not tuch the bellow. But similar photos its for me, and other photographers, only for SEM

Frédéric,you said in an earlier post that you didnt have the limitations of a classical system: were you referring to photography without stacking, or are you using more advanced processing than simple stacking ( e.g. deconvolution ?)

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Matteo sorry but you are not so professional....> > In these size it's an obligation to take a lot of> photo... Depth of view is very limited for theses> field of view by numerical aperture. With a 20X> she is near 1.5 to 2µm.... > > It's important to understand this point....> > There is no normaly here.... Just an obligation.> With à 4X it's near 15 µm.....> > Perhaps could you learn more if you listen more ?> > Fred

320 photos for have a similar result, sorry but for me its only time wasted. With only 10 photos I have the same results if not better, all my gallery photos is take with max of 20 photos in multifocus, not over. Just for say the pyroclore example its take with only 7 photos and I not have halos, blurred image etc....

Matteo you are a true professional.... But in fact you don't listen me and you are not able to make similar photo. I you don't want learning it's not my problem. Pyrochlore is a low resolution photo, sorry but i think than all good photographer here think that...

If you want i can make a true photo to compare but you can't send me this specimen...

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Matteo you are a true professional.... But in fact> you don't listen me and you are not able to make> similar photo. I you don't want learning it's not> my problem. Pyrochlore is a low resolution photo,> sorry but i think than all good photographer here> think that...> > If you want i can make a true photo to compare but> you can't send me this specimen...> > For make a 0.35 mm FOV photo 10 or 30 photo it's> just ridiculous....

hahahaha...ok ok stay with your idea, I am not professional but strange, Lapis use my photos, Mineralien Welt use my photos, Mineralogical Record use my photos, Gems & Gemmology use my photos and and also used for courses of G.I.A., Rivista Mineralogica Italian just in the last number I had just 3 articles with all my pictures and of specimens under the 1 mm of crystal....strange all this magazines want my photos if I am not professional, and not for speack of the many private collectors or museums or university pay on contract for have photos take by me.

Matteo it's not my probleme if they want pay for your photo, it's a great thing for you. But take a 1 mm crystal it's very easy... If they think than you are the best, good for you. But for me, this example of clinochlore show just your limitation in small minerals.

For me magazines are not important, when i look in these magasines, their photo are not enough good for than i paid for that....

I make new photo... i give example of definition if you want in the same size = 1.4 mm okay ? All here could compare... I 'll prefer take your clinochlore and all could be seen the difference.

Again and again the same discussion which comes out from time to time....

I am wondering Chinellato are you trying to teach us or is this a show of egomania?

I guess all mindat knows you have 15000 euro equipment (good for you, I don't and don't want), if that is worth or not is not by business, but this is not a good reason (in my opinion) to always criticize someone else work. Do you think your comments are helpful? they only lead to irritation and do not bring anything good to you, to the other participants and readers. Is that so difficult to have an adult discussion, with a fruitful exchange of ideas and opinions??

btw Chinellato one more comment, doesn't your signature say "equipment is only the beginning, the photographer plays the major role"? and than you say you need 15000 euro equipment, it's not a good commercial for you skills.

just to conclude, I do photo because I enjoy it and whenever I can I'm glad to share my experience, to learn from someone else, or to help beginners.

Here an imperfect photo, just finished, no treatment.... Just stacked. FOV is 1.4 mm

Yes they are some noise (czp can done better) but the resolution is better than your pirochlore. We can see details.... Anf for that just an objective 4X and for 23 dollars you find the same quality on ebay...

Dario Cericola Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Again and again the same discussion which comes> out from time to time.... > > I am wondering Chinellato are you trying to teach> us or is this a show of egomania? > > I guess all mindat knows you have 15000 euro> equipment (good for you, I don't and don't want),> if that is worth or not is not by business, but> this is not a good reason (in my opinion) to> always criticize someone else work. Do you think> your comments are helpful? they only lead to> irritation and do not bring anything good to you,> to the other participants and readers. Is that so> difficult to have an adult discussion, with a> fruitful exchange of ideas and opinions?? > > btw Chinellato one more comment, doesn't your> signature say "equipment is only the beginning,> the photographer plays the major role"? and than> you say you need 15000 euro equipment, it's not a> good commercial for you skills.> > just to conclude, I do photo because I enjoy it> and whenever I can I'm glad to share my> experience, to learn from someone else, or to help> beginners.

for sure I have teach to you seen you have ask to me some technique opinions time ago on mineralogical photos, I have the emails.

it's not a good commercial for you skills.

depend, for the moment the persons give work to me have another idea, for my professionalism in my work and other.

I don't want a lesson ( i have enough in France with some others "professional" who teach bad technics). I'm pragmatist ! If it's good the technic is good. I made with my ideas.

I'd like compare my technic with others and i need to take a same specimen to see but i don't find someone for make that.... Matteo, Dominik or others i'm waiting you. Just for the pleasure.... I'm not professional, just an amateur....

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> If we don't work for magazine we are bad ? > Haha.... I can't tell more.... > > It's unbelievable to read that !> > Send me something.... all the size is good for> me....

for sure with your photos no. Ah, I am informed on french magazines you have say they not pay, they pay....but for quality photos. And just for understand the person here, go to here http://www.mindat.org/mesg-6-244147.html normaly a similar person I call " the portrait of modesty " hahahhaha

Interesting... I prefer photos in book .... For magazine, it's free. They dont' pay but if they don't say the true....

In fact, here we have the demonstration of your capacity to show ypur professionalism.. I' ll posted regulary in great size my bad photo... Just for the pleasure. Free for all.... ;) and with good resolution

Frédéric Hède Wrote:-------------------------------------------------------> Interesting... I prefer photos in book ....> > In fact, here we have the demonstration of your> capacity to show ypur professionalism.. I post> regulary in great size my bad photo... Just for> the pleasure. Free for all.... ;)

you go in my gallery here and you have all measures you want, its only at 7000 photos to control. And now I not lost any other time for answer in this post.